On Campus - by Henry Chan on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 15:10 - 6 Comments - 46 views
Who is Charlie Kaufman (Tisch ’80) and why is he showing a film at Cantor? Had I asked this question to any of the film students yesterday evening, I probably would have seen two different reactions: 1) an incredulous look, followed by a refusal to talk to someone so ignorant, or 2) an incredulous look, followed by a long sermon on the greatness of Kaufman. Seriously. If last night’s screening taught me anything, it’s that, for most film students, Charlie Kaufman = God.
“Synecdoche, New York,” written and directed by Kaufman in his directorial debut, follows a dying theater director intent on creating his last, greatest piece of work. Starring movie greats like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, and Michelle Williams, it’s one of the most anticipated movies of the fall.
I hadn’t seen the trailer for “Synecdoche” but I wasn’t expecting much of a departure from Kaufman’s screenplay “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”: memory loss, blue hair dye, bathing in sinks, and lots and lots of romance. Plus, with Philip Seymour Hoffman, how could it go wrong?
Easily, apparently. Admission to the screening was free, but open only to current NYU students. Despite arriving around 2:30 pm, though, two and a half hours before the show started, my friends and I were near the end of a line that stretched around the block to Weinstein. Ridiculous.
More importantly still, I didn’t like the movie. Most of it seemed completely random. Not the pleasant randomness that I saw in “Eternal Sunshine,” but a confusing one. Much of the movie went over my head. It was like one big, giant metaphor: burning houses, a city within a city, tattooed 4-year-olds, and Ellen, the cleaning lady. There were many story lines, often running parallel to one another. The movie switched back and forth between story lines, such that I lost track as to where and when the main character was.
But even as I sat there, confused as to what I had just watched, appreciative film students applauded loudly all around me. Soon, Kaufman arrived (more applause) and sat down to answer some questions, clearly not wanting to be there. I don’t blame him. Hands shot up into the air, eager to be picked and many of the questions were ridiculous in their banality. Why did you write this? How was it like working with the actors? More annoying was all the brown-nosing. One guy in particular spent a minute thanking Kaufman for influencing and inspiring him, effectively embarrassing himself in front of all of his peers.
“Synecdoche, New York” opens October 24 in select theaters. If you like being mystified by giant metaphors, then you’d probably like this film. If you’re a film student, you probably would too. If you’re like me, and usually watch movies for mindless entertainment and don’t wish to be terribly confused, skip it.
6 Comments
this is the problem — or problems — with reviews like yours. (And I say this as someone who has written reviews for the new york times, the washington post, the chicago tribune, and others — and have also had my work reviewed widely.)
1) You sped the first part of the review dealing with immaterial info (”everyone here knows who charlie kauffman is.” And this is bad, why?)
2) You factor in the annoyance of your having had to wait in line. What does that have to do with the movies goodness, and why should anyone but you care?
3) You admit that you “watch movies for mindless entertainment.” This is a fine way to go through life. But it is not acceptable if you’re trying to put on a critical apparatus.
I wouldn’t usually comment. But this was such a screaming example of what’s wrong with criticism in general, and web criticism in particular, that I couldn’t help myself.
Darin Strauss, writing movie reviews for the Washington Post isn’t really a credential. Those reviews usually are pretty badly written.
Henry Chan
Dear Mr. Darin Strauss,
Above little post of mine wasn’t meant to be a review. It was an account of my experience with the screening.
Seriously. Pay attention.
If it was a review, I’d have adopted a pretentious and condescending tone, like, ahem. You.
xoxo
Henry
In Darin Strauss’s defense:
A.) I don’t think he was being particularly condescending.
B.) The quality of much of the rest of the Washington Post notwithstanding, he really is a fantastic writer.
C.) He made a perfectly understandable mistake. One of the weird functions of blog journalism, in general and on this site specifically, is that the divisions between different categories get blurred a lot. So it’s not inconceivable that someone would look at this post, miss the subject heading, and think “review.”
Because reviews of this film can easily be found in a hundred different places, Henry’s post was meant to address the screening (hence the title), touching on the contents of the film but focusing on the screening itself. That said, information about the surprisingly long lines, the types of people waiting in them, the director’s demeanor is very relevant information for NYU students considering attending future on-campus movie screenings. Henry makes no attempt to masquerade as a film expert, he does, however, give a useful summary of the movie and the hidden costs of going to a free screening.
Leave a Reply
Speaking as someone who is not a film student, Charlie Kaufman is a god. I don’t think I could handle a world that would allow a Kaufman/Hoffman movie to not be the best thing ever.